Why did King Arthur do what he did?

Answer 1

The King Arthur stories are mythic versions of history that actually happened, namely the invasion of Britain by the Saxons and later their allies the Anglos. As to why King Arthurd did what he did; the actual history of Celtic era, Roman occupied Britain, is actually far uglier than the Clive Owen movie. See, the Cymry, the original inhabitants of what is now England ("Angleland" "Anglo-Land"), like the Irish and Scots, were divided into clans, as they became civilized by the Romans and taught government organization, those clans later grew and called themselves separate kingdoms. In fact, every state in Britain today, is either formerly a kingdom, or a fiefdom, that is why every region on the island has its own unique local color and sub culture, and, why the stereotype is true, that you can tell where someone is from on Britain from the way they talk.

As to why the history is ugly; when Rome abandoned Britain, Rome's Celtic generals, each felt that they should be high king of Britain. Now, when you have men commanding large armies of men all armed to the teeth, each of them with a different opinion on who should be king, you can imagine where that went. The inter kingdom wars of Britain, devastated the population, reducing it, by some estimates by as much as 50%. In other words when the Saxons began to invade, the Cymry were only fighting them at half the strength they would have had, had they remained unified. In other words King Arthur was always outnumbered 2 to 1, sometimes even 10 to 1.

Again each of the formerly Celtic descended Roman trained generals, they were more concerned with their own power, one of these Celtic generals who later on declared himself King, was a man named Vortigern, who used a lot of Saxon mercenaries. Vortigern was an exceedingly evil man; because blonde women have always been seen as physically attractive in western culture, he promised the Saxons more gold, if they brought some of their loveliest girls, so, while Saxon soldiers were bleeding and dying for him, he was gorging himself on wine and food, and helping himself to Saxon girls. Also, Vortigern promised and promised, but he never delivered, ticked off, Vortigern was slain by his own Saxon mercenaries, and to Vortigern's Celtic, councilmembers, or tribesmen, or advisors, well the powerful people who were Celtic who were at Vortigern's side, the Saxon's said, they would take Vortigern's lands as payment. They then told the native Celts that they had to choices; move north, or be decapitated. The Celts did not run; rather they resisted violently, however, because the majority were not trained soldiers, they were slaughtered by the Saxons.

See, in Celtic culture prior to Roman times, warrior training began from the moment a boy could pick up a sword. The idea of a specialized, professional army was alien to the Celts throughout Europe, they felt that warfare skills were necessary of all men, and you were not considered a man unless you knew how to fight. Mind though, the Celts were not a warlike people, however some tribes in Europe were exceedingly brutal; the Celtic tribes in the Balkan peninsula (near modern day Greece), used to practice decapitation, and from the severed heads of their enemies, they made collars for their horses. So, a Celtic horseman would ride around, on a horse, wearing a collar made from human heads. Oh yeah one more thing; he would probably be naked too. Almost forgot about that.

Whatever the case, the Romans always followed the same pattern with the Celts; they would march in, make an offer or Roman culture, and if the Celts refused they would kill the men, take the pretty women, and then sell the children as slaves for profit. Always so pragmatic those Romans eh? Moving on; the majority of Celtic tribes, actually more accurately, some accepted some didn't, some took up Roman ways and some did not, it depended on the tribe. Some Celts were peace loving and only fought in self defense, others had an adrenaline high addiction and were addicted to war. In time though, the "good way" or the "bad way," the Celts came under Roman control. With the cultural influence of Rome, it was no longer required of every single Celtic male to learn how to fight, the Romans told them "that's how barbarians do it; civilized men rely on a professional army!" As you can imagine, taking away that cultural aspect of Celtic society, turned them into wolves whose fangs had been removed. Hitler's aryan supremacy, the daughter ideology of nordic supremacy, is a myth; almost from when they evolved from the Cro Magnon people, the Celts almost totally dominated Europe, and the Goths generally avoided them, they avoided them because they were scared to death of them. Very few modern day Scots for example, proud "pure celt" hot blooded ones, will buy into that nordic supremacy myth.

What this has to do with the Saxon invasion; because even the British Celts, the Cymry, were reliant on a professional army, the fact alone that the Saxons still used ALL men when training for fighting, made the Cymry in Britain, easy pickings for them. Some of them fled, but, most died fighting, hopelessly outmatched by men who had trained how to kill from the time they were 5. News of the massacre commited by the Saxons spread throughout Britain. The response of the Cymry kings? They kept on fighting among themselves; they didn't care. That is when Arthur (the historical one) stepped onto the scene.

One of the few people concerned for Britain's future, King Arthur basically said "enough if is enough, if we don't unify, the Cymry will become extinct." Being a Roman soldier, specifically a Cataphract, Arthur was well familiar with the various Barbarian tribes Rome had encountered. On their side, the Saxons had numbers, but on his side, Arthur had the training of the Roman army. Additionally, the Cymry had a long tradition of archery; where do you think the Welsh long bowman came from? The Welsh were good archers, because archery was a form of warfare all the tribes of the Cymry specialized in. In other words a given Welshman learned how to use a bow and arrow, because it was part of his culture, part of the culture of Britain. The combination of Celtic Archers, with the use of a Roman style phalanx, made it so that army after rival Cymry king army, fell to Arthur and soon, Britain was unified, and strong enough to hold off the Saxon invasion.

The Clive Owen movie is not accurate; the army King Arthur would have used, would have consisted of a tight phalanx formation, like the kind used by the Romans, it was not the dramatic one on one fighting you saw there. A more accurate picture of what Arthur's fights against the Saxons would have looked like, would be this;

skip to about 4:20 and wait for it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slVX-301Ykw

A battle of King Arthur's against the Saxons, would have probably looked a lot like that given Arthur's Roman training. Also, the majority of the Celts were trained by the Roman army, that is Celtic fighting men, so they would have had the discipline. Also, the Saxons would have indeed been an unorganized mob just like the Germans shown here. I personally strongly dislike the Germans, and all Teutonic peoples HOWEVER, seeing that battle scene, the discipline of the Roman army and how unorganized the Germans are, I almost felt sorry for them. Its clear, just from watching the Romans hold their formation, and their discipline, that the Germans don't have a chance. King Arthur's armies were outnumered, BUT, on his side he had Celtic fighting men every bit as disciplined as the way the Roman army is portrayed in the above link, additionally, he had top notch Celtic archers. The reason Robin Hood is a folk hero in Britain, is because archery is a form of warfare that was highly respected by the Celts. They respected the skill, gracefulness and accuracy of the bow and arrow. The whole Robin Hood thing is a Celtic cultural influence thing.

Rewinding yet again though; between the archers, and the Roman trained Celtic fighting men, contrary to myth, even though Arthur was outnumbered, it was pretty much one sided okay? Arthur was not this dramatic, heroic, hair flowing in the wind, sparklin teeth, tragic hero struggling dramatically against an overwhelming Saxon horde, with no hope for the future. The real history of King Arthur is actually, quite boring; because he had Roman discipline on his side, the truth is, the bulk of Arthur's battles against the Saxons were very one-sided. However, the Saxons were not fools.

By the time of Arthur's death, enough Saxon spies, had watched how the British trained. Saxon spies, or Cymry Celtic people whom they bribed. Not all Celts were loyal to Britain you know; in exchange for gold, wealth, and of course a beautiful blonde Saxon skank, or several of them, through Bribery and spies, the Saxons obtained the Roman army's training methods which, by the time of Arthur's death, they had perfected. After Arthur died, the Saxons got their revenge, and drove the Cymry to what is now Wales, others, to a part of France now known as Brittanny. Again the Saxons were not fools; they quickly realized, okay not so quickly it took them 30 years (roughly how long Arthur reigned), that traditional, Teutonic methods of warfare were good for surprise attacks and guerrilla style war, but, for large scale, long drawn out wars, the methods of hitting hard and fast, and then running, were NOT going to work, if they wanted Britain that badly.

Again not being fools, they rapidly learned and adapted Roman style warfare, and pretty soon, the Saxons were also using the equivalent of Cataphracts, using phalanx style formations, striking with cavalry, using archers, etc. Because Saxons kept pouring in from Denmark, and of course in their own kingdom in Britain they bred like crazy as men were allowed to have mistresses, very soon they outnumbered the Celts, and in Celt vs Saxon round two, this time, there was no Arthur, no charismatic leader on the Celt's side, and this time, the Saxons had both numbers like I said, and Roman army discipline. The Celts never stood a chance, so they were driven to what is now Wales, Cornwall, and Brittanny.

However if it had not been for Arthur, the Celts of Britain would be extinct now. King Arthur, now this part of the movie IS accurate, did what he did, because the Saxons exterminated all the inhabitants of a land before they took it. They would invade, wipe a land clean of the original inhabitants, and then simply proceed to live there. They did indeed, not believe in race mixing; where the Romans saw a pretty woman, a soldier would grunt "I want her!" and then he would, ah, make her his wife, Saxons felt that Saxon should only breed with Saxon or, of course, other Teutonic peoples, like their cousins the Goths, or other Germanic tribes. When the Saxons completely took over the lion's share of Britain, the best farm and grazing lands, they invited their cousin tribe the Angles, who, through marriage and court intrigue, took over the Saxon Kingdom. Next, the Angles gave their name to the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, naming it "Angle Land," from which we get "England."

In the native Celtic language, Britain is named after the Cymry, its called "Ynys Prydain," which, translated into modern English (of all languages, considering the history.....) the name means "Strong Stone." The island was named so, because, the people were described as being "Strong like Stone." Modern day England though is not pure Anglo Saxon; over time the Saxons and the Angles began taking Christianity more seriously, and not all Welsh stayed in Wales, they went to England to look for work. Both men and women, intermarried one another that is why no Englishman can be said to be pure Celt, or pure Nordic (E.G. Anglo or Saxon). The rare exceptions are the nobility; members of the Anglo and Saxon noble houses still exist in Britain, and they tend to marry only among themselves. Actress Nicole Kidman for instance, her family is a member of a Saxon or Anglo noble house. If she has been criticized for marrying beneath her station, boy you have no idea......

Another famous member of the Anglo-Saxon houses, was Lady Diana Spencer, later on "Princess Diana." Yup; those noble houses go way, way back, to the 500's A.D. The British monarchy, is descended from the house of Tudor, the Tudor's themselves, were a powerful Celtic clan, who were a bit on the treacherous side. When Vortigern had power, the Tudors worked with them, or rather, the ancestors of the house of Tudor. When Arthur had power, they worked with him. When the Saxons had power, they worked with them. When the Normans had power, yes, they worked with them.

Pretty soon, there was no power for anyone, and working together with so many powerful people, for so many centuries, had given the family considerable influence, pretty soon, they were able to take over Britain. Apparently, their treachery and their patience worked, because they are Britains' royal family. During their dealings with Saxon and Norman though, the house of Tudor picked up quite a bit of Germanic blood, that is why they are cousins to many German noblemen, the families of which, some, believe it or not are still around.

"If you know your enemy, and you know yourself, then you will know the outcome of 1,000 battles."

-Sun Tzu

good day.

User:67.148.120.72747